6 + 5 = 2012

[womblemaster]

"To be eligible, a player of any nationality must have been developed by the club for three years between the ages of 15 and 21."

 

 

so all the big clubs are gonna wander round the youth tournaments hovering upthe 14 year olds.

 

 

[Rob W]

The EU will never wear Blatters ideas

[UV]

Someone needs to tell the EU there's a competition starting next month in Austria & Switzerland which is blatantly discriminating against English players and stopping them from plying their trade.

[womblemaster]

"Blatter has a meeting with the EU on 5 June and he added: "Speaking about it is illegal? For whom? For when? If there is a law, a law can be amended."

 

b****** is gonna try and grease palms.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/7421348.stm

 

 

i feel an online petition commingon....

 

John McDonald is a spokesman for the European Commissioner for Sport and he told BBC Radio 5 Live he does not expect Blatter's ambitions to succeed on this front.

 

ukfans gonna have to make our voices heard to eu .

[merlin]

Since when did the 'EU' ever take any notice of what the English think?

Only when they want more contributions to their budget.......

[OzzieMandias]

Sepp Blatter's controversial proposal to introduce a law forcing clubs to field a minimum of six home nationals in their starting line-ups has moved a step closer to fruition after it received overwhelming backing at Fifa's annual congress in Sydney. The Fifa president's resolution was endorsed by a majority of 155-5, with 40 abstentions.

 

"We were at the crossroad between the interests of clubs and national teams, and the congress of Fifa has given very clear indications of where we have to go," said Blatter. "Together with the chairman of Fifa's football committee, Mr Franz Beckenbauer, and Michel Platini, we come to this resolution. The congress was very happy in a result of overwhelming majority, with 155 votes in favour and five against. It is an overwhelming support to this resolution. The application of such a system would start only at the end of 2010 and we would start progressively with four, five and six."

 

Blatter hopes to have the scheme, which would limit teams to five foreign players, in place by the 2012-13 season. However, he is likely to encounter stiff resistance from the European Commission, who have denounced the idea – which would risk falling foul of regulations on free movement of labour and non-discrimination – as illegal and discriminatory.

 

The European parliament recently voted by more than 10 to one against Blatter's plan, with Vladimir Spidla, the European commissioner for employment, insisting that "the proposal is directly discriminatory and therefore incompatible with EU law". Blatter, however, remains unperturbed by the possibility of a legal challenge.

 

"Speaking about it is illegal? For whom? For when? If there is a law, a law can be amended," said Blatter. "Where there is a will, there is a way. And we will try with consultation and consultation and not confrontation. I have a meeting with the speaker of the European parliament on June 5 in Brussels, as he said, to explore the ways. If he says to explore the ways, it's not to say 'stop it', so you see we're on the right track."

 

Michel Platini, the Uefa president, expressed his support for the scheme while acknowledging the potential legal complications surrounding its implementation. "It is a thorny issue," said Platini. "Europe is not [in] a comfortable position but we will do all we can to help the Fifa president reach this objective.

 

"[The rule] is considered illegal by the European Union. Within the football family we don't all agree. Some of the leagues were against, some in favour, clubs generally against. We at Uefa would find ourselves in a difficult place and could find ourselves in court. [but] I fully share the philosophy and objectives of the rule. We are in full agreement when it comes to the general idea."

 

How far Fifa are from moulding that philosophy into a workable scheme remains to be seen. Blatter, who has previously sought backing for the proposal by arguing that the Premier League's domination of the Champions League highlights the need for a more level playing field, is now of the view that the idea would not have a radical impact on the status quo after all.

 

"We have had Manchester United winning the European Champions League with six players eligible for the Great Britain team at the beginning of the match, so we are not far away," Blatter added. Chelsea had four. Zenit St Petersburg, when they played Glasgow Rangers, they had up to seven. Glasgow had four or five. We are not far away from a situation."

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/30/1

[indi]

The bloke is having serious delusions of grandeur if he thinks the eu is going to tear up one of its fundamental principles simply because he says so. They've given him a get out with their support of the uefa version, if he's too self important to see that then there's going to be seriously troubled times ahead for fifa and football in general.

[afar]

The bloke is having serious delusions of grandeur if he thinks the eu is going to tear up one of its fundamental principles simply because he says so. They've given him a get out with their support of the uefa version, if he's too self important to see that then there's going to be seriously troubled times ahead for fifa and football in general.

 

Absolutely spot on. We are not just talking about a small piece of the EU constitution, it's one of it's fundamental principles. Good luck with that Blatter.

 

Oh and I didn't think there was such a thing as a Great Britain national team, well not yet anyway.

[Dokko]

He's got the entire backing of FIFA. 

 

 

[Guest Dev]

He's got the entire backing of FIFA. 

 

 

 

Yes, lots of things have the unanimous backing of FIFA, right up until they get canned at the very next executive meeting.

 

Great politics by Blatter, anyone who actually believes the man gives a shit about anything rather than $$$ & power is extremely amusing.

 

In fact you'll find the very answer to the whole 5+6 proposal lies in the EU constitution. Blatter would never even propose it if he knew it wasn't going to be shut down in the end by the EU. As it is he gets to win votes from all the confederations outside of Europe, by supporting this policy, and he gets the EU to do his dirty work in rejecting it. You have to hand it to the man. You don't get to be head of FIFA without being slippery weasel bastard.

[afar]

He's got the entire backing of FIFA. 

 

 

 

Yes, lots of things have the unanimous backing of FIFA, right up until they get canned at the very next executive meeting.

 

Great politics by Blatter, anyone who actually believes the man gives a s*** about anything rather than $$$ & power is extremely amusing.

 

In fact you'll find the very answer to the whole 5+6 proposal lies in the EU constitution. Blatter would never even propose it if he knew it wasn't going to be shut down in the end by the EU. As it is he gets to win votes from all the confederations outside of Europe, by supporting this policy, and he gets the EU to do his dirty work in rejecting it. You have to hand it to the man. You don't get to be head of FIFA without being slippery weasel b******.

 

absolutely correct, I never thought of that. He gets to play the "protector of the small and weak" while fully knowing that things won't change one iota.

[Dokko]

He's got the entire backing of FIFA. 

 

 

 

Yes, lots of things have the unanimous backing of FIFA, right up until they get canned at the very next executive meeting.

 

Great politics by Blatter, anyone who actually believes the man gives a s*** about anything rather than $$$ & power is extremely amusing.

 

In fact you'll find the very answer to the whole 5+6 proposal lies in the EU constitution. Blatter would never even propose it if he knew it wasn't going to be shut down in the end by the EU. As it is he gets to win votes from all the confederations outside of Europe, by supporting this policy, and he gets the EU to do his dirty work in rejecting it. You have to hand it to the man. You don't get to be head of FIFA without being slippery weasel b******.

 

absolutely correct, I never thought of that. He gets to play the "protector of the small and weak" while fully knowing that things won't change one iota.

 

He's right sneaky twat.

 

[Taylor Swift]

Wait, so Blatter has now gone from someone trying to take down the Premiership to someone who's only pretending to care about the 'weak' because he knows nothing will change?

 

Hilarious.

[afar]

Wait, so Blatter has now gone from someone trying to take down the Premiership to someone who's only pretending to care about the 'weak' because he knows nothing will change?

 

Hilarious.

 

I don't recall ever saying he was going to take down the PL with this, he's got an agenda against them and would love nothing better than clip there wings but I have always stated that he hadn't a hope in hell of pulling this one off.

 

But go ahead and twist people's words, if it makes you feel better.

 

Oh and Hilarious, yawn, how old are you 6 ??

[Guest optimistic nit]

thats a bloody good thearoy (how have i forgotten how to spell this word, i'll use this one, as its my most amusing attempt) by dev there, didn't consider it like that.

[Ericz]

The Law is just a tool to maintain law and order, the same goes with EU Law to be honest.

 

If you refer to the European Convention of Human Rights, Rome Treaty, Nice Treaty or any primary or secondary legislation, you will realise alot of so called 'law' are subjective and can be readily open to debate.

 

At the end of the day, Law can be changed easily. It's all politics to be honest.

 

What is the law? It's just words that governs people's life. Law is never about moral values, justice. It's about following the rules, black and white, period.

 

<<<< this is coming from a law student.

 

Personally, despite contravening the current EU policy, I would not be surprised if the whole idea is approved by EU. They just have to reason it out or find a way to better phrase the situation. It's not difficult. It's just playing around with words.

 

 

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Hogwash. The principle of free movement of labour is a little more than an inconvenient regulation...

 

Free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law. It is perhaps the most important right under Community law for individuals, and an essential element of European citizenship.

 

For workers, this freedom has existed since the foundation of the European Community in 1957. It is laid down in Article 39 of the EC Treaty and it entails:

 

the right to look for a job in another Member State;

the right to work in another Member State;

the right to reside there for that purpose;

the right to remain there;

the right to equal treatment in respect of access to employment, working conditions and all other advantages which could help to facilitate the worker's integration in the host Member State.

 

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/freemovementofworkers.htm

[Ant1815]

Hogwash. The principle of free movement of labour is a little more than an inconvenient regulation...

 

Free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law. It is perhaps the most important right under Community law for individuals, and an essential element of European citizenship.

 

For workers, this freedom has existed since the foundation of the European Community in 1957. It is laid down in Article 39 of the EC Treaty and it entails:

 

the right to look for a job in another Member State;

the right to work in another Member State;

the right to reside there for that purpose;

the right to remain there;

the right to equal treatment in respect of access to employment, working conditions and all other advantages which could help to facilitate the worker's integration in the host Member State.

 

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/freemovementofworkers.htm

 

Not hogwash at all. The EU was perfectly happy for many member states to effectively ditch that principle (for a time at least) when some of the new Eastern European nations joined and it became an inconvenience to allow their citizens full movement and employment rights.

 

In this respect Blatter is perfectly correct, laws can be changed. The only question is wether the EU is prepared to change them or not. At the moment it seems as though not but who knows what 'arrangements' might be worked out over the next few years.

[indi]

Hogwash. The principle of free movement of labour is a little more than an inconvenient regulation...

 

Free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law. It is perhaps the most important right under Community law for individuals, and an essential element of European citizenship.

 

For workers, this freedom has existed since the foundation of the European Community in 1957. It is laid down in Article 39 of the EC Treaty and it entails:

 

the right to look for a job in another Member State;

the right to work in another Member State;

the right to reside there for that purpose;

the right to remain there;

the right to equal treatment in respect of access to employment, working conditions and all other advantages which could help to facilitate the worker's integration in the host Member State.

 

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/freemovementofworkers.htm

 

Not hogwash at all. The EU was perfectly happy for many member states to effectively ditch that principle (for a time at least) when some of the new Eastern European nations joined and it became an inconvenience to allow their citizens full movement and employment rights.

 

In this respect Blatter is perfectly correct, laws can be changed. The only question is wether the EU is prepared to change them or not. At the moment it seems as though not but who knows what 'arrangements' might be worked out over the next few years.

 

Not the same thing at all.

 

The new members joined the EU under the 2003 Treaty of Accession and that was where the provisions for temporally restricting the movement of their citizens was agreed, when they signed up to that treaty, they agreed to those restrictions. They are only temporary restrictions agreed out of political expediency in order to make enlargement a smoother process. No such agreement exists relating to the existing member states.

 

The only way for something similar to be arranged relating to the citizens of the existing member states, would be for a similar treaty to be signed by them. This is simply not going to happen. To draw up a whole treaty for the "benefit" of a handful of EU citizens would be a ridiculous waste of time and money and would almost certainly never be agreed by the member states anyway. For a start it goes against the founding principles of the EU and secondly it would be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights and probably be defeated anyway. Why would they do that simply because Sepp Blatter wants them to!?! There's a big difference between adding something like this, as a small part of the terms of a treaty representing the introduction of an important and massive change, and going back and retrospectively rewriting the existing rules of the EU.

 

Blatter's right; laws can be changed, but if he thinks that he's got any chance of the world's biggest economy; representing,  27 nations and 500 million people, changing one its absolutely fundamental and founding principles, simply because he stamps his foot and demands it, he's seriously mentally ill!!

[Ericz]

That's not true. Article 39 EC has always been subjected to debates/controversies in the European Court of Justice. It is not as straightforward as laymen think. Like I said before, as long as a reason is found, or a  better way of phrasing it is found, it can be done.

 

It's really all down to playing with words and politics.

 

As for the member states, member states would be dumb to leave EU as EU offers alot economically. That is the primary reason why members states joined EU in the first place. It has also been proven statistically that members states in EU outperform members states not in EU by quite a wide margin.

 

Also, member states does not need to follow every single thing EU states. There's different types of legislation (I kinda forgotten my EU law) but basically only treaties need to be followed not the rest. For the rest, they can enforce it in a way which is different from other member states.

 

Ultimately, it is really down to playing with words and political will. That is the reality of the world.

[indi]

That's not true. Article 39 EC has always been subjected to debates/controversies in the European Court of Justice. It is not as straightforward as laymen think. Like I said before, as long as a reason is found, or a  better way of phrasing it is found, it can be done.

 

It's really all down to playing with words and politics.

 

As for the member states, member states would be dumb to leave EU as EU offers alot economically. That is the primary reason why members states joined EU in the first place. It has also been proven statistically that members states in EU outperform members states not in EU by quite a wide margin.

 

Also, member states does not need to follow every single thing EU states. There's different types of legislation (I kinda forgotten my EU law) but basically only treaties need to be followed not the rest. For the rest, they can enforce it in a way which is different from other member states.

 

Ultimately, it is really down to playing with words and political will. That is the reality of the world.

 

Eh? What's that about?

 

If there's no big deal about ignoring the right of EU nationals to freedom of movement and employment, then why did they feel the need to include it in the Accession Treaty?

[Guest johnnyappleseed]

the funny thing is that not only would EU players be protected from this rule, but also ACP countries because they have an associate agreement with the EU and the European Court of Justice already ruled on this matter: the Kolpak ruling.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolpak_ruling

[merlin]

Hogwash. The principle of free movement of labour is a little more than an inconvenient regulation...

 

Free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law. It is perhaps the most important right under Community law for individuals, and an essential element of European citizenship.

 

For workers, this freedom has existed since the foundation of the European Community in 1957. It is laid down in Article 39 of the EC Treaty and it entails:

 

the right to look for a job in another Member State;

the right to work in another Member State;

the right to reside there for that purpose;

the right to remain there;

the right to equal treatment in respect of access to employment, working conditions and all other advantages which could help to facilitate the worker's integration in the host Member State.

 

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/freemovementofworkers.htm

 

Not hogwash at all. The EU was perfectly happy for many member states to effectively ditch that principle (for a time at least) when some of the new Eastern European nations joined and it became an inconvenience to allow their citizens full movement and employment rights.

 

In this respect Blatter is perfectly correct, laws can be changed. The only question is wether the EU is prepared to change them or not. At the moment it seems as though not but who knows what 'arrangements' might be worked out over the next few years.

 

Not the same thing at all.

 

The new members joined the EU under the 2003 Treaty of Accession and that was where the provisions for temporally restricting the movement of their citizens was agreed, when they signed up to that treaty, they agreed to those restrictions. They are only temporary restrictions agreed out of political expediency in order to make enlargement a smoother process. No such agreement exists relating to the existing member states.

 

The only way for something similar to be arranged relating to the citizens of the existing member states, would be for a similar treaty to be signed by them. This is simply not going to happen. To draw up a whole treaty for the "benefit" of a handful of EU citizens would be a ridiculous waste of time and money and would almost certainly never be agreed by the member states anyway. For a start it goes against the founding principles of the EU and secondly it would be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights and probably be defeated anyway. Why would they do that simply because Sepp Blatter wants them to!?! There's a big difference between adding something like this, as a small part of the terms of a treaty representing the introduction of an important and massive change, and going back and retrospectively rewriting the existing rules of the EU.

 

Blatter's right; laws can be changed, but if he thinks that he's got any chance of the world's biggest economy; representing,  27 nations and 500 million people, changing one its absolutely fundamental and founding principles, simply because he stamps his foot and demands it, he's seriously mentally ill!!

 

'the World's biggest economy'...you need a reality check son !

The EU is one of the most regulation-bound economies in the civilised world - China & India are already peeing all over your so-called economic powerhouse and their dominance will continue to grow, not to mention that a Recession-hit USA is STILL the world's largest economy.

 

You have been listening to far too much propaganda from your teachers(either that or you are a LIb-Dem MP..!!)

I could reel you off a list of reasons why the EU will collapse within 20 years - only Germany has a strong

economy of the major nations and they are already regretting ditching the DM in favour of the Euro because they are limited by the weaker economies of nations also in it ; the two nations with the best level of prosperity in Europe are Switzerland and Norway, neither of whom are members...

 

As I have said before, this is a footie site, so I'll leave it at that - don't even get me started about resources - even Germany is dependent on the goodwill of Russia for her gas...France is amost 90% nuclear(I bet the Greenies love that !)and the UK is now an IMPORTER of oil & Gas...

 

Here in Oz, we have enough Gas for hundreds of years, Iron Ore going to China by the thousands of tonnes, new oil being discovered and a cpuntry almost as big as the USA with 22m people - do the math and tell me who has got the brighter future..why do you think the FIFA conference was held in Sydney this week....!!

[OzzieMandias]

Rant away all you like, but the EU does have the world's largest economy. Fact!

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

 

Methinks you're the one who's been listening to "too much propaganda"

 

don't even get me started about resources.

 

Why would we? It's utterly irrelevant.

[indi]

Hogwash. The principle of free movement of labour is a little more than an inconvenient regulation...

 

Free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law. It is perhaps the most important right under Community law for individuals, and an essential element of European citizenship.

 

For workers, this freedom has existed since the foundation of the European Community in 1957. It is laid down in Article 39 of the EC Treaty and it entails:

 

the right to look for a job in another Member State;

the right to work in another Member State;

the right to reside there for that purpose;

the right to remain there;

the right to equal treatment in respect of access to employment, working conditions and all other advantages which could help to facilitate the worker's integration in the host Member State.

 

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/freemovementofworkers.htm

 

Not hogwash at all. The EU was perfectly happy for many member states to effectively ditch that principle (for a time at least) when some of the new Eastern European nations joined and it became an inconvenience to allow their citizens full movement and employment rights.

 

In this respect Blatter is perfectly correct, laws can be changed. The only question is wether the EU is prepared to change them or not. At the moment it seems as though not but who knows what 'arrangements' might be worked out over the next few years.

 

Not the same thing at all.

 

The new members joined the EU under the 2003 Treaty of Accession and that was where the provisions for temporally restricting the movement of their citizens was agreed, when they signed up to that treaty, they agreed to those restrictions. They are only temporary restrictions agreed out of political expediency in order to make enlargement a smoother process. No such agreement exists relating to the existing member states.

 

The only way for something similar to be arranged relating to the citizens of the existing member states, would be for a similar treaty to be signed by them. This is simply not going to happen. To draw up a whole treaty for the "benefit" of a handful of EU citizens would be a ridiculous waste of time and money and would almost certainly never be agreed by the member states anyway. For a start it goes against the founding principles of the EU and secondly it would be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights and probably be defeated anyway. Why would they do that simply because Sepp Blatter wants them to!?! There's a big difference between adding something like this, as a small part of the terms of a treaty representing the introduction of an important and massive change, and going back and retrospectively rewriting the existing rules of the EU.

 

Blatter's right; laws can be changed, but if he thinks that he's got any chance of the world's biggest economy; representing,  27 nations and 500 million people, changing one its absolutely fundamental and founding principles, simply because he stamps his foot and demands it, he's seriously mentally ill!!

 

'the World's biggest economy'...you need a reality check son !

The EU is one of the most regulation-bound economies in the civilised world - China & India are already peeing all over your so-called economic powerhouse and their dominance will continue to grow, not to mention that a Recession-hit USA is STILL the world's largest economy.

 

You have been listening to far too much propaganda from your teachers(either that or you are a LIb-Dem MP..!!)

I could reel you off a list of reasons why the EU will collapse within 20 years - only Germany has a strong

economy of the major nations and they are already regretting ditching the DM in favour of the Euro because they are limited by the weaker economies of nations also in it ; the two nations with the best level of prosperity in Europe are Switzerland and Norway, neither of whom are members...

 

As I have said before, this is a footie site, so I'll leave it at that - don't even get me started about resources - even Germany is dependent on the goodwill of Russia for her gas...France is amost 90% nuclear(I bet the Greenies love that !)and the UK is now an IMPORTER of oil & Gas...

 

Here in Oz, we have enough Gas for hundreds of years, Iron Ore going to China by the thousands of tonnes, new oil being discovered and a cpuntry almost as big as the USA with 22m people - do the math and tell me who has got the brighter future..why do you think the FIFA conference was held in Sydney this week....!!

 

You haven't got the first fucking clue what you're talking about!!

 

It seems even the CIA disagrees with you:

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

 

As for regulations, what's that got to do with anything!?! But seeing as you brought it up I'll put you straight on that too. You're obviously not aware that a lot of the rest of the world is choosing to adopt European standards (even the USA) because if they don't then they can't sell their goods and services in the EU and that's so important to them that they are using them in their home markets as well.

 

"20 reasons why the EU will collapse within 20 years" eh? That's hilarious. If that's true then why are so many countries so desperate to join and why is the US so worried about the EU kicking its arse?

 

Again, your mention of resources shows your ignorance, yes they are important, but they are not the be all and end all. Japan has pretty much zero natural resources yet has managed to create one of the biggest economies in the world. Although securing energy is becoming more and more important, your points are random and largely irrelevant, especially the one about France, what's that got to do with anything. Countries import and export stuff all the time, it's called trade and every country is dependent upon it to maintain their own living standards, places like Russia can play hardball with the smaller countries for political reasons, but their not dumb enough to turn it into a trade war with any of the major players.

 

As for Australia, well the rest of us are more than aware of how much gas you produce, most of it comes from your mouths!! If you're wetting your knickers about having a FIFA conference then I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you've quite a long way to go before you achieve world dominance.